Those are the understated opening words of a disturbing, though unsurprising, nine-month study of the Obama administration’s official, yet unacknowledged, remote-controlled bombing campaign in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan, near Afghanistan. The report, “Living Under Drones,” is a joint effort by the New York University School of Law’s Global Justice Clinic and Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic.

The NYU/Stanford report goes beyond reporting estimates of the civilian casualties inflicted by the deadly and illegal U.S. campaign. It also documents the hell the Pakistanis endure under President Barack Obama’s policy, which includes a “kill list” from which he personally selects targets. That hell shouldn’t be hard to imagine. Picture yourself living in an area routinely visited from the air by pilotless aircraft carrying Hellfire missiles. This policy is hardly calculated to win friends for the United States.

Without a Warrant: Police Drones—Recording Telephone
& Private Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?

It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record
without warrants telephone and private conversations inside Americans’ homes
and businesses: Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting
local police using drones without warrants to invade citizens’ privacy, local
police have a strong financial incentive (Civil Asset Forfeiture) to use their
drones or Federal Drones. Should (no-warrant) drone surveillance evidence be
allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example drones
covertly recording private conversations and electronic communications in
Citizens’ homes and businesses, expect federal and local police Civil Asset
{Property Forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a mere
preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property,
little more than hearsay: Any conversation, phone call or other electronic
communication captured by a drone inside a home or business, police could take
out of context to initiate arrests and civil asset forfeitures to confiscate a
home, business and related assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that
require someone first be convicted of a crime before police can civilly forfeit
their property—by referring their investigation to a Federal Government Agency
that may legally rebate to local police up to 80% of assets the Feds forfeit.
Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to civilly
forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject
property to state and federal government asset forfeiture in addition to
illegal drug forfeiture laws. Increasingly local police are paid part or all
their salary from proceeds realized from civil and criminal asset forfeiture.
Police have to confiscate Citizens' property to keep their job. This is a clear
conflict of interest. At the least, Congress should require the Federal Government
prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that a property is subject to Civil
Asset Forfeiture, not a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than
hearsay.

The passed Federal “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” effectively
eliminated the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset
Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they
“learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no
warrant) government-drone electronic surveillance be admissible in courts,
police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses’ (drone captured
emails, Internet data, private conversations and phone communications seized on
private property in hopes of discovering crime or civil violation to cause
arrests and property forfeitures. It is problematic without public oversight, a
corrupt U.S. Government agency or local police, may use drone no-warrant
searches of Citizens’ emails, Internet data and phone call communications to extort
and blackmail Americans; sell (no-warrant drone acquired physical and
electronic surveillance information) seized from Americans and private
businesses.

Almost every week the media reports police arrested and convicted for selling
drugs, extorting drug dealers, falsifying reports to cause arrests; perjury in
court. It is foreseeable this kind of corruption will find its way into
government / police drone search and seizure of lawful Citizens' private
property to cause arrests and property forfeiture.

Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be
charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S.
Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against
Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This
defense can become a “Catch 22” criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and
innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when
questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may
(involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the
“Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of
guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government
prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered
during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution.
For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are
reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil
Asset Forfeiture.

"How can Americans tolerate this murder and trauma committed in their name? But don’t expect a discussion of this in Monday night’s foreign-policy debate. Mitt Romney endorses America’s drone terrorism." I too noticed that comment by Romney about his endorsment of the use of drones. This is sad to say, but what needs to happen, God have mercy on the souls of those affected, but an out of control drone strike needs to happen on American soil doing the horrible damage and death that these other countries are feeling so that the U.S. MSM will be at the scene showing the entire world what happens in these strikes and the public will finally get a first hand look at the death and destruction. Even so, I expect that if that were to occur that nothing will come of it and it will be business as usual. DC will come up with some sort of lie as their offical truth and the public will believe it just as they believe that those three building fall by fire on 9/11.